Read on Twitter
#ZeroCovid gives us an early taste of a debate that will define the next decade in public health here and around the world. Scientific intervention and zero tolerance for harm pitted against tradition, nature and self-sufficiency. It’s a divide that cuts across both...
Left vs right, and nationalist vs internationalist. At heart, the question of how far science and political power should intervene in people’s lives and freedoms in order to achieve a greater good.
It’s not new either - it’s there in other debates:
It’s not new either - it’s there in other debates:
Organic agriculture vs “feeding the world”; protecting children vs teaching them to take risks; pasteurised vs raw milk; generations of car safety improvements that some argue take away the joy of driving; intervention in the winery vs natural wine. And so on.
Most times the public health scientists have won. Who would now argue against compulsory seatbelts, or health and safety rules at work? The question is whether we’ll ever return to “normal” after Covid-19. Many are desperate to do so, but there is a strong countervailing force.
Here’s how it runs: we now know how to suppress this virus through proven means: social distancing, limits on mass gatherings, masks, contact tracing... what’s more we can now see these policies also suppress other viruses that kill people (Flu of course, also Rotorvirus), or
make them very poorly and unproductive (Norovirus, even the common cold). Why would we knowingly adopt policies that allow these nasty diseases to spread, kill thousands each year and put pressure on the health system. The trouble is much of this side is currently represented by
Unappealing authoritarian types with unrealistic ideas of what society will accept. But their counterparts are even more unappealing: generally entitled libertarian types who get offended at having to put on a small cloth mask in a shop during a global pandemic. This won’t be a
National debate, it will be global. Some countries will take the more laissez faire approach - most of the US, probably most of the EU especially France and Italy where there is already deep seated “back to the earth” sentiment. Others will go full-on zero Covid and much else
besides. I strongly suspect the public health scientists will win in many places. History suggests they will. That’s why we have flouridated drinking water, seatbelts and zero accident policies in oil majors. There is a danger of overshoot though. The potential losses if life
becomes further sanitised include: Reduced natural immunity to a range of diseases, increased allergies, further reduced social cohesion, a loss of fun, new national borders etc. I don’t know which side I fall on. My heart is with the hedonists, my head at least partially
with the scientists. A future where we no longer tolerate avoidable deaths from respiratory viruses feels appealing in some ways, yet dystopian in others. But the debate is going nowhere.
